This is a ridiculous stance to take. So because one drug/company decided to raise prices 1500% we need to take immediate and specific action.
But those companies who operate at 600% markup in the same industry are perfectly fine.
I can guarantee you the latter are where the actual problem lies - since it's systemic. The outliers that get press are good - but only if people solve the problem vs. kneejerk reactions like specific legislation for a single drug.
My point is that every drug company is doing this. And not a little bit. We shouldn't set some ridiculous threshold before we take action (as long as we're stolen from, it's ok if it's only a small amount right?) - we should fix the problem where it begins. This means adding competition to the market, in which case the usual race to the bottom should occur. You are basically advocating for a tiny measure that "fixes" a fraction of a fraction of a percentage of wasteful drug spending - and simply focusing on manufactured outrage. This is how the industry continues to win.
If we are talking about one company then specific action seems appropriate.
I agree that there are systemic issues. I think that is a larger conversation that will take more time. There are merits to the European systems that are generally more liberal, or at least are characterized as such, and likewise, merits to the US system. We could probably cherry pick examples in each system and perhaps that is how it will continue in that larger conversation.
However, in this instance, which is the context I am focused on we recognize that allowing a monopoly is a failure. It presents special circumstances, so special action to sidestep the bureaucracy seems appropriate to me.
I believe that the proverbial 2x4 to the head (of Mylan, in this instance), would do more to further the larger conversation and the points we agree on, than waiting for the conversation to conclude with a pretty bow. It won't.
Making examples of the most egregious perpetrators has an immediate, albeit incremental impact.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I see negative value in stamping down the outliers. This just sweeps the conversation under the rug and people feel good about "doing something". We then all can rage against the latest scapegoat who is doing exactly what everyone else in their position is - they just got a bit too aggressive and got unlucky on the roll of the PR dice. The rest of the industry laughs and continues to reap 900% margin on generic products, and increases it 15% next year since 15% is totally reasonable. We then repeat the next two minutes of hate every 2-3 years.
We are talking about a price increase from a floor that was already absolutely insane. $300 for a $20 or less to manufacturer device is already being ripped off, and we are only just now talking about it because it went to $600. Why is there a difference in reactions here? Are you the one who gets to judge a $580 profit is ok vs. a $280 profit? Why? They both seem obscene to me - why is this just now becoming a problem? Obviously $300 is an acceptable price - so is $400? $500?
This is just the tip of the iceberg. If you start by clipping the tall poppies you might get some extremely slight downward pressure on prices in the market - but that does nothing to solve your actual problems. It's penny wise and pound foolish and is the approach we've thus far taken with predictable results.
Doing nothing, or a little empty outrage is sweeping it under the rug, or "the approach thus far."
What I am talking about has a practical benefit beyond targeting the worst offenders, which again seems appropriate. Establishing a precedent for what is "too aggressive" frames the conversation going forward. Otherwise, your logic, "Obviously $300 is an acceptable price - so is $400? $500?," is valid. When human lives are at stake I don't think it is. So, establishing a precedent and thereby the beginning of a framework we move the conversation forward rather than just another lap on the rotary.
I also disagree that doing something is the same as doing nothing. I find that practically and logically false. Particularly, in the context of progress in a bureaucracy, it has been the modest incremental changes that have created the opening for larger reform.
I think we generally agree in the outcome we want, just disagree on how to get there.
I'm not proposing doing nothing. I'm stating making targeted efforts to go after this specific case is a silly waste of effort (at best - at worst it's placebo) is all. I would rather see that effort go towards actually reforming the system that allows monopolies to form when they don't make (open) market sense.
Otherwise I do think we agree - the end result is Mylan can't charge $600 Epipen.
I acknowledge and respect your preference for larger reform. I think that would be great.
In the meantime, why is it binary in your mind? Why is it larger reform or nothing?
Because this does have a life and death impact, I don't think it is silly, or a waste. The efforts, at worst have potential to move the larger reform forward, and at best potentially save a life.
But those companies who operate at 600% markup in the same industry are perfectly fine.
I can guarantee you the latter are where the actual problem lies - since it's systemic. The outliers that get press are good - but only if people solve the problem vs. kneejerk reactions like specific legislation for a single drug.
My point is that every drug company is doing this. And not a little bit. We shouldn't set some ridiculous threshold before we take action (as long as we're stolen from, it's ok if it's only a small amount right?) - we should fix the problem where it begins. This means adding competition to the market, in which case the usual race to the bottom should occur. You are basically advocating for a tiny measure that "fixes" a fraction of a fraction of a percentage of wasteful drug spending - and simply focusing on manufactured outrage. This is how the industry continues to win.